The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Back to my original question, why would a average user change their defualt browser that came with thier computer? Sell the non developer, and non developer client, standards. Let's go round and round with this.

Originally Posted by geosite

The same can be said of just about industry. Take the food industry, for example. Many, perhaps most, people don't bother checking food containers for ingredients or warnings. But some do, and the food industry's "developers" certainly do.

Food industry has to list ingrediants BY LAW because it effects everyone directly! If standards were to be law, then this discussion would be null.

Originally Posted by geosite

Web standards are becoming increasingly important, and it's absurd to keep harping, "No one cares." How do you know? Have you conducted a survey that proves no one on the planet cares about web standards?

Have you? Has anyone else? You said it yourself no one informs average Joe Schmoe? I never said no one on the whole planet care about web standards. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by geosite

BINGO. Web standards are becoming increasingly important as well. While I'm a little uncertain about supporting the idea of making web standards support a legal requirement, I like the idea of somehow stepping in that direction. The idea I'm playing with right now is to simply require browser manufacturers to display web standard ratings on their browsers. They would still be free to thumb their noses at web standards, and consumers would still be free to choose browsers that are not compliant.

Standards has to be a legal requirement, otherwise your idea can't work.

Originally Posted by geosite

Why not do both? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to rate a dozen browsers than a gazillion web pages?

But if no one follows the standard... I think I read somewhere, where someone said that developers should stop supporting IE if IE doesn't support standards, that didn't fly well because devs would lose money.

Originally Posted by geosite

It isn't just Microsoft; virtually NO ONE is making an effort to inform the public about web standards, and I suspect even many web designers don't see where web standards fit into the big picture.

Why not? If it is so important to everyone, then why aren't we broadcasting it?!?!?!?!?! Or is it only important to developers? Do you see my point?

What are they competing against? Marketshare? Then why isn't Opera selling itself or standards more? I see you were never in sales. If you make a better product, you don't sit and let everyone come to you, you have to push and sell!!

Sell Joe and Jane public, standards and why it is better and you have defeated IE. No lawsuits, no forum arguments, etc.

Can't agree with you. I don't think that Opera is forcing anyone to change browsers.

And you don't think, from a business perspective, that opera would want more users to make more of a financial gain?

Opera, a small company, is spending thousands if not millions for this suit, and they expect no financial gain in return? Doesn't make sense.

Again i go back to the AMD/Intel example because it is almost exactly the same arguement.

Originally Posted by molona

Users don't care about this, not even IT people, but web developers care (or at least we should) because we should be professionals and test our sites (and make them work) in as many browsers as we can imagine, even if we know that most of the users will browse with IE... I am not happy with having to work harder just because of one browser. Still, I wouldn't be annoyed if Microsoft didn't participate in W3C. But they do, and they help to create those standards, and then make my life harder... You have to practice what you preach, and that's what Microsoft doesn't do.

Standards has to be a legal requirement, otherwise your idea can't work.

Baloney.

Why not? If it is so important to everyone, then why aren't we broadcasting it?!?!?!?!?! Or is it only important to developers? Do you see my point?

Microsoft's mantra seems to be "Forget about it, because our typical customer is lazy and ignorant." That mantra is too often repeated by web designers, who are themselves generally too lazy to spread the word.

It's not a hard concept to grasp: If you want something, you have to work for it. If you're going to sit around on your butt playing "See No Evil," then don't complain about Microsoft's endless games. If, on the other hand, you want to make M$ clean up its act, then get with the program.

Go back a few sentences, why isn't anyone informing Joe Public about standards??

Microsoft's mantra seems to be "Forget about it, because our typical customer is lazy and ignorant." That mantra is too often repeated by web designers, who are themselves generally too lazy to spread the word.

It's not a hard concept to grasp: If you want something, you have to work for it. If you're going to sit around on your butt playing "See No Evil," then don't complain about Microsoft's endless games. If, on the other hand, you want to make M$ clean up its act, then get with the program.

Hmmmm...Does it follow then that browsers should be required to post web standard ratings, as I suggested here?

As I said before,

If web standards become law, then yes, a rating system could work. But since MS is part of W3C, then somehow, someway, they will make standards work in thier favor. Hence why I gave a different option.

I don't understand how you can "force" someone to follow a recommendation. That's all the W3C Standards are, a recommendation. In most other industries, Microsoft's implementation would have become the "de facto" standard that other browsers strive for. In web development, some enlightened individuals foreseen the benefit of an official standard, produced by an organization that is essentially unbiased.

Microsoft should not be forced (nor do I believe they can) to adhere to this standard, despite how much easier it would make our lives, as web developers.

The thing about the average user not noticing the difference in regards to standards isn't really true. They frequently do notice the difference when a site doesn't work in one browser compared to another.

I've said before that these issues of standards have caused problems before in the television, film and telephone industry. RCA and Westinghouse transmitted TV signals in slightly different formats causing problems when customers tried to watch on their home TV. Eventually, the government stepped in and created the NTSC standard.

So thinking that any one browser vendor can just go off and do their own thing is not a good thing. But two things to keep in mind:

1) Many of the problems with IE are not that they don't follow the standard but that their browser is just plain broken implementing the standard correctly, or parts are not implemented at all.

2) If Microsoft wants to add elements and properties to the standard/recommendation, being a member of the W3C, they can submit such elements and push for their adoption. Microsoft does this now, as do all browser vendors.

1. Web standards would have to be law before a company is forced to design browsers that meet those web standards.

2. Web standards would NOT have to be law in order to pass a law requiring that browsers display something that advises users of their adherence to web standards, recommendations, or whatever you want to call them. That's a totally different ball game. M$ would be free to snub all the standards it wants, and people would remain free to use IE. The only catch is that IE would be required to carry a little notice stating that it is not web standard friendly.

It's kind of like the example you gave citing movies. It's perfectly legal for people to produce violent and degenerate movies, and it's legal for people to watch those movies. However, those movies are required to advertise their suitability via ratings (e.g. PG, XXX).

But since MS is part of W3C, then somehow, someway, they will make standards work in thier favor.

I don't think that this thread is about what we use to browse the web. I think this thread is about if Microsoft should be following web standards (w3c recommendations) or not and why Opera has filed a complain about it. Being an acting member of the W3C, I think that Microsoft should.

I fully realise that and had already posted my opinion regarding it; which was that I do not think that any body should be allowed to take a company to task about it's products. To my mind it's a case of put up or shut up. There is a way of testing Microsoft's and the web standards champions resolve; imagine if every web developer was to build their sites in accordance with web standards and put something along the lines of "You are using a non web standard browser which this site does not support" on their sites. What do you think would happen? Do you think that users would cave in and download one of the alternative browsers or that they would simply leave the site. I think I know where my money would be. My point about the Opera browser was that I had never tried it other than to test web pages in and could not believe what a heap it was when I did try it.

There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of us have to pee on the electric fence.

And you don't think, from a business perspective, that opera would want more users to make more of a financial gain?

Of course I do . If you read my posts, you will find that I do think that Opera is on a win/win situation. If the European Commission does nothing, Opera will gain the favour of the web development community and exposure, which already implies more users. If the European Commission penalises Microsoft again, all competitors, including Opera, obtain more time to gain a higher market share as well as forcing Microsoft to throw a bunch of money through the window (first, all the money they already put for IE8 and second because they will probably be forced to build it as a stand alone browser, with all the expenses this will imply).

Originally Posted by centered effect

Then why isn't the W3C kicking MS out?

For various reasons. First, because anyone can participate in the discussions just by adding himself/herself to the mailing lists. Second, because W3C creates recommendations that become "standards" because the vast majority agrees to them. Microsoft is a major player, and to make this possible, they need Microsoft's agreement too, as Adobe, Mozilla, Sun Microsystems and a long etc. do. Third, because the W3C doesn't kick anybody out, as far as I know, because nobody is forced to participate. It is a completely voluntary work.

Many of the CSS rules we used were suggested by Microsoft... but then Microsoft didn't implement them or they did in a propietary way (like opacity property) which is kind of absurd.

I don't know about this because I do not know how is the situation in US at the moment, but Microsoft was fined for this very same reason in US first. 2-3 years after that, Microsoft was fined in Europe. I may not mean a thing today, though.

I think that the only reason that Opera complained before the European Commission is because it is easier for them as they are a European company, and the European Commission provides a way to do it withough ruining themselves with lawyers, because they do not need to file an expensive law suit as they would need to do in US, and hence it is financially viable to do it, and nothing else.

1) Many of the problems with IE are not that they don't follow the standard but that their browser is just plain broken implementing the standard correctly, or parts are not implemented at all.

2) If Microsoft wants to add elements and properties to the standard/recommendation, being a member of the W3C, they can submit such elements and push for their adoption. Microsoft does this now, as do all browser vendors.

I fully agree with you, although in my personal opinion, if you simply implement a minor part of the standard then you are not good enough. Also, if you submit suggestions and proposals to the W3C which are accepted and become part of the recommendation but then you do not apply them to your own browser, or do it in a propietary way, it is very similar to doing nothing.

If people do not realise how annoying this is for a web developer, it is because there are a lot of good professionals that test and make their sites work in every browser, and do it because we all know that if the site gives a problem that's lost revenue. People will never ask themselves if it is because the browser does not implement the recommendation properly. They don't know what a recommendation, standard or whatever is, and how it affects them. They will always blame the site, and that's we take so much effort and apply hacks when necessary. They don't know about HTML or CSS, and they don't care.

Microsoft should not be forced (nor do I believe they can) to adhere to this standard, despite how much easier it would make our lives, as web developers.

I don't think that Microsoft should be forced to follow a standard that is nothing else but a recommendation... but I do think that it would be good if Microsoft was forced to be coherent and consistant with what they say. If you do not want to adhere to standars, then don't participate, don't vote them and don't propose, and don't say you do support them in public.

I don't know about this because I do not know how is the situation in US at the moment, but Microsoft was fined for this very same reason in US first. 2-3 years after that, Microsoft was fined in Europe. I may not mean a thing today, though.

Well, I can't go into too much detail without getting over my head in politics, but Microsoft was on the verge of being broken up into smaller companies when it was rescued from justice by a new presidential administration, as brandaggio suggested in his second post on this page.

Various entities have continued hitting Microsoft with lawsuits, but it's an uphill battle, given the current state of the nation. Of course, Europe is largely run by corporations, too, but they're more likely to see U.S. corporations as competitors. European citizens seem to have a different outlook on things, too, which is probably a major reason Firefox is so popular over there.

I think that the only reason that Opera complained before the European Commission is because it is easier for them and they do not need to file an expensive law suit, and hence it is financially viable to do it, and nothing else.

Filing such a complaint in the U.S. would be like spitting in the wind. Many U.S. citizens actually look to the European Union for justice. Indeed, I believe the company that marketed the Linux operating system named Lindows appealed to the European Union for help, though Microsoft eventually prevailed against it.

I found the following passages illuminating. They ought to make people more sympathetic to Opera...

That is the core of Lie's claim that Microsoft's lack of standards support has hurt Opera. "We've been forced to decode the errors in IE and try to duplicate its rendering mode," said Lie, so sites look good when viewed in Opera. Those efforts have not always been successful, he acknowledged.

"Often, those pages won't render properly for Opera," he said. "We've lost many users who used Opera and liked it, but abandoned it because some pages wouldn't render correctly."

However, this is just a rather random question: What does Microsoft gain from having IE built into the system like it is? What would it hurt to have it more external like Safari on OSX. Or even just bundle something like Firefox or Opera rebranded? It would probably save them money in the long run of having to develop IE and keep its security up-to-date.

I'd agree to a law. There wouldn't be seat belts or air bags in cars except for a few models who'd be selling themselves as "safer" vehicles, if a certain someone hadn't pushed to make such things laws. There'd still be rats in our sausages, sawdust in our flour, and the disabled would still be crawling up the steps of public buildings without these laws. Companies have proven so many times that they don't adhere to some recommendation just because it's better for the consumer.

DrHoward hit is right on the head-- there's almost no point to a standard if no-one has to adhere to it legally. While so far everyone but MS is playing ball, they know they don't have to. (Note though, there's like a bunch of different types of NTSC and the sound standards for TV are even worse).

Why do mobile phones do so much more cool stuff in Japan and Europe than in America? Because of the competing "standards" in American phones (CDMA, TDMA, GSM 1900...), while Japan has just one, and all of Europe pretty much uses just one (GSM900).

Microsoft knows it's doing the VHS vs BetaMax race and hopes that so long as enough consumers use their product exclusively, their "standard" will become THE standard. And it almost is-- I'm still seeing sites like this (at least at this date... hopefully it will change) which don't render on anything other than IE because as far as the company has known, the only browser used by its clients is IE.

An actual LAW is likely needed to stop this VHS/Beta race. Recommendations, I dunno where Opera is going to get to with this.

Whether Opera wins or loses; whether IE is bundled with Windows or not; whether IE can be uninstalled or not -- all that I care about is that IE becomes standard complaint. That said, this comparison isn't completely fair considering that I've had more "crashes" with Mac OS X than with Windows XP.

In order for the future to be better by a large amount, it must be different by a large amount.

I think that statement alone is enough to indict Opera’s anti-trust actions as stupid and ill-considered. But we should also recognize that it forms the basis of Opera’s grievances. We should all be pissed off that the discussion today hinges on how we will get MSIE to improve by slight degrees (or should we expect more?). Opera could have done better, though, by shipping Gears and working with Google to make it a host for pluggable renderers…like Opera. Too bad Opera has prioritized proving a point over actually improving the situation. But I digress.

I read the article and I agree with parts of it, but not with the whole and, specially, not with what you posted. It is not that Opera couldn't have done better by taking other actions, but I don't consider Opera's anti-trust actions stupid. Self-promoting, sure, and if they are useless, time will tell, but not stupid.